On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:30 AM, McDowell, Brett <[email protected]> wrote: >> I believe only the ADSP documents talk about 3rd party, and it is >> defined as d= not From Domain. >> >> These are 3rd party: >> >> DKIM-Sig: ... d=dkim.bar.com >> From: [email protected] >> >> DKIM-Sig: ... d=beer.com >> From: [email protected] >> >> I believe Patrick defined 2nd party to be: >> DKIM-Sig: ... d=dkim.bar.com >> From: [email protected] >> >> the maawg meeting was a first that I've heard that. >> >> First party is of course: >> >> DKIM-Sig: ... d=bar.com >> From: [email protected] >> >> >> BUT I really thinking making such distinctions is the wrong approach. >> It really doesn't matter what type of signature it is. I'd even >> advocate for a DKIM update that would cause all signatures to be 2nd >> or 3rd to enforce the point. >> > That seems aligned with Steve's point about DKIM's value coming (only?) when > the d= value is not the same as the domain-name in the from: field. So > according to you (and Steve?) the IETF should pass a normative requirement > that all verified email be hired out to 3rd parties?! That strikes me as > very anti-Internet.
Ah, you just enforced my point. Review the 3rd party definition again. DKIM-Sig: ... d=dkim.bar.com From: [email protected] This is considered 3rd party. Even though it is controlled by the same entity. same with this example.: DKIM-Sig: ... d=aol.com From: [email protected] It seems Stephen considers this off topic, so anything further should be taken off-list. -- Jeff Macdonald Ayer, MA _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
